Re: Missing LVM (Logical Volume Manager)
On 11/18/18 9:11 AM, Jordan Geoghegan wrote: > > > On 11/17/18 10:53, Predrag Punosevac wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 01:35:05AM +0100, Willi Rauffer wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> we want to make one logical volume out of several physical volumes, >>> but there is no \ >>> LVM (Logical Volume Manager) in OpenBSD! >>> Will there be a LVM in OpenBSD in the future? >>> >>> Thanks...Willi Rauffer, UNOBank.org >> P.S. OpenBSD's NFSv3 server and client implementation is pretty slow so >> that begs the question how you are going to access that data pool. >> > I have an OpenBSD 6.3 NFS server, and it is able to achieve gigabit line > speed no problem. I've transferred hundreds of terrabytes through that > thing and it hasn't let me down once. Most of the NFS clients connected > to it are CentOS 7 machines, and after a bit of fiddling, line speed was > achieved without issue. The OpenBSD NFS client does seem to be a a tad > slow though, and much fiddling was required to get anywhere close to > line speed with it. > Out of interest, could you detail some of the fiddles?
Re: Missing LVM (Logical Volume Manager)
On 11/18/2018 2:54 AM, Stuart Henderson wrote: On 2018-11-17, Misc User wrote: I concur, software raid is a bug, not a feature, especially since if you truly need RAID, hardware cards are fairly cheap. Never had a RAID controller die? I've had plenty die, but the number of HW raid chips die on me is much, much lower than the times I've had software raid fail. Plus HW raid chips allow for full disk encryption, which is far more important to me than worrying about a system going down due to a failed disk (I keep backups anyway). But the, for the most part, I don't bother with RAID in any form and just opt for redundant systems instead. Carp+rsync on cheap boxes has provided for a much more stable platform than trying to do component-level redundancy.
Re: Missing LVM (Logical Volume Manager)
On 2018-11-17, Misc User wrote: > I concur, software raid is a bug, not a feature, especially since if you > truly need RAID, hardware cards are fairly cheap. Never had a RAID controller die?
Re: Missing LVM (Logical Volume Manager)
On 11/17/18 10:53, Predrag Punosevac wrote: On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 01:35:05AM +0100, Willi Rauffer wrote: Hello, we want to make one logical volume out of several physical volumes, but there is no \ LVM (Logical Volume Manager) in OpenBSD! Will there be a LVM in OpenBSD in the future? Thanks...Willi Rauffer, UNOBank.org P.S. OpenBSD's NFSv3 server and client implementation is pretty slow so that begs the question how you are going to access that data pool. I have an OpenBSD 6.3 NFS server, and it is able to achieve gigabit line speed no problem. I've transferred hundreds of terrabytes through that thing and it hasn't let me down once. Most of the NFS clients connected to it are CentOS 7 machines, and after a bit of fiddling, line speed was achieved without issue. The OpenBSD NFS client does seem to be a a tad slow though, and much fiddling was required to get anywhere close to line speed with it.
Re: Missing LVM (Logical Volume Manager)
On 11/17/2018 10:53 AM, Predrag Punosevac wrote: On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 01:35:05AM +0100, Willi Rauffer wrote: Hello, we want to make one logical volume out of several physical volumes, but there is no \ LVM (Logical Volume Manager) in OpenBSD! Will there be a LVM in OpenBSD in the future? Thanks...Willi Rauffer, UNOBank.org There are people on this mailing list infinitely more knowledgeable and experienced than I both with Linux and BSDs so they will correct me claims if necessary. In my experience using LVM2 (LVM is depreciated) to create software RIAD even on Linux (I have the most experience with RHEL) is a bad idea unless you belive at the RedHat PR BS. Most people myself included if they have to use softraid on Linux prefer to do it from mdadm (softraid discipline for Linux and then perhaps put LVM on the top of it although I fail to see the purpose). In the lieu of the lack of modern file system on Linux (Btrfs is a vaporware and ZFS is an external kernel module which lags many version numbers behind Solaris and FreeBSD) some PR guys from RedHat started even advertising LVM2 snapshots as a real snapshots. That is pure BS as they are very expensive operation and for all practical purposes useless on the legacy file system XFS which is really the only really stable FS on Linux. If you are storing your data on Linux you should be using Hardware RAID and XFS. Not having LVM2 on OpenBSD is a feature not a bug! Dragon Fly BSD has partial not really functional implementation of LVM that I am quite familiar with. IIRC NetBSD has LVM2 implementation but it is hard to me to say usefulness of it as I have never used. As somebody mentioned. OpenBSD softraid can be used to manage logical volumes oko# bioctl softraid0 Volume Status Size Device softraid0 0 Online 2000396018176 sd3 RAID1 0 Online 2000396018176 0:0.0 noencl 1 Online 2000396018176 0:1.0 noencl but it is quite crude and it will take you more than a week to rebuild simple 10 TB mirror. IMHO softraid is far more useful for drive encryption on your laptop for example than for data storage. I don't have any experience with Hardware RAID cards on OpenBSD (Areca should have really good support) which I do prefer over softraid (but not over ZFS). However OpenBSD lacks modern file system (read HAMMER or HAMMER2) to take advantage of such set up. Best, Predrag P.S. OpenBSD's NFSv3 server and client implementation is pretty slow so that begs the question how you are going to access that data pool. I concur, software raid is a bug, not a feature, especially since if you truly need RAID, hardware cards are fairly cheap. But if you can't afford such a card, fairly reliable method is to just replicate the /altroot scheme with all your partitions. Even just using an external drive that you do periodic backups to is more reliable than software raid. For the most part, I've actually seen more failures with softraid than just independent disk even between systems where the only difference is the serial number being slightly incremented (sofraid, no matter how well coded still causes far more disk usage than a normal un-raided disk). Although, really, if you need reliability, it is much cheaper, less effort intensive, and more reliable to just grab a bunch of low-end systems and cluster them together. I have a small cluster 5 crusty old SunFire V120 boxes that've been running OpenBSD for nearly 10 years as my firewalls, I'm just running with a single disk in each. Each of them has failed at least a couple items over the years (failed disks, RAM modules, motherboards, power supplies, etc), but collectively they've had 100% reliability, even counting time for required reboots for upgrades, patches, and other maintenance Overall, I've found that software raid systems are only good for supporting whole-disk crypto and nothing else. Otherwise you are just adding an unnecessary performance penalty, kills your disks faster, and makes it much more a pain in the ass to recover from. -C .
Re: Missing LVM (Logical Volume Manager)
On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 01:35:05AM +0100, Willi Rauffer wrote: > Hello, > > we want to make one logical volume out of several physical volumes, but there > is no \ > LVM (Logical Volume Manager) in OpenBSD! > Will there be a LVM in OpenBSD in the future? > > Thanks...Willi Rauffer, UNOBank.org There are people on this mailing list infinitely more knowledgeable and experienced than I both with Linux and BSDs so they will correct me claims if necessary. In my experience using LVM2 (LVM is depreciated) to create software RIAD even on Linux (I have the most experience with RHEL) is a bad idea unless you belive at the RedHat PR BS. Most people myself included if they have to use softraid on Linux prefer to do it from mdadm (softraid discipline for Linux and then perhaps put LVM on the top of it although I fail to see the purpose). In the lieu of the lack of modern file system on Linux (Btrfs is a vaporware and ZFS is an external kernel module which lags many version numbers behind Solaris and FreeBSD) some PR guys from RedHat started even advertising LVM2 snapshots as a real snapshots. That is pure BS as they are very expensive operation and for all practical purposes useless on the legacy file system XFS which is really the only really stable FS on Linux. If you are storing your data on Linux you should be using Hardware RAID and XFS. Not having LVM2 on OpenBSD is a feature not a bug! Dragon Fly BSD has partial not really functional implementation of LVM that I am quite familiar with. IIRC NetBSD has LVM2 implementation but it is hard to me to say usefulness of it as I have never used. As somebody mentioned. OpenBSD softraid can be used to manage logical volumes oko# bioctl softraid0 Volume Status Size Device softraid0 0 Online 2000396018176 sd3 RAID1 0 Online 2000396018176 0:0.0 noencl 1 Online 2000396018176 0:1.0 noencl but it is quite crude and it will take you more than a week to rebuild simple 10 TB mirror. IMHO softraid is far more useful for drive encryption on your laptop for example than for data storage. I don't have any experience with Hardware RAID cards on OpenBSD (Areca should have really good support) which I do prefer over softraid (but not over ZFS). However OpenBSD lacks modern file system (read HAMMER or HAMMER2) to take advantage of such set up. Best, Predrag P.S. OpenBSD's NFSv3 server and client implementation is pretty slow so that begs the question how you are going to access that data pool.
Re: Missing LVM (Logical Volume Manager)
On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 01:35:05AM +0100, Willi Rauffer wrote: > Hello, > > we want to make one logical volume out of several physical volumes, but there > is no LVM (Logical Volume Manager) in OpenBSD! > > Will there be a LVM in OpenBSD in the future? > > Thanks...Willi Rauffer, UNOBank.org Probably not, but we have something that can do some of what LVM does: sofftraid. BTW, bugs@ is not the proper mailing list for this question. Redirected to misc@ -Otto
